N K SUBRAMANYAM Vs. H SUBRAMANYA JOIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case is appearing in person. The learned Advocate General had refused sanction under the Contempt of Courts Act but the matter was placed before the Court because one of the contentions raised by the petitioner was that a case for contempt action has in fact been made out and that the learned Advocate General has over-looked certain aspects of the matter. The Court needs to take note of the fact that the allegations of contempt are effectively directed against certain members of the Bar some of whom happen to be senior members of the Bar. It may be that the Advocates are not immune under the Contempt of Courts Act but at the same time, one needs to take cognizance of the fact that Advocates are officers of the Court, that they are required to perform their functions on behalf of the parties to whom they represent and that some times these duties in hotly contested proceedings have to be rather unpleasant. In view of this situation, a Court will have to be extremely cautious in dealing with instances where allegations of contempt are levelled against members of the Bar. In appropriate cases or in very serious ones where an Advocate has grossly misconducted himself which in fact may warrant action, a Court will certainly take cognizance but in other cases where indiscriminate allegations are made a Court will have to take note of the fact that the officers of the Court are entitled to a degree of protection while discharging their legal functions. It is well-settled both under the law of Defamation as also under the Contempt of Courts Act that a lawyer is entitled to carry out his professional functions which must be done fairly and fearlessly.

(2.) We need to observe these aspects because the gravamen of the charges as far as the present petition is concerned boil down to the fact that according to the petitioner there were several litigations going on at that point of time and it is his case that he was seriously prejudiced in the writ petition that had been filed by him because of two developments the first of them being that the Court passed an order hearing the parties that there was no urgency in the matter on that particular date and that, therefore, no further orders were necessary and on the subsequent date of hearing, when it was pointed out to the Court that certain orders has been passed in the companion M.F.A., the Court directed that those orders be produced for perusal of the Court. There is nothing unusual with regard to the passing of these orders though the petitioner has made a very serious grievance that according to him these particular developments interfered with the grant of relief to him. He construes this as interference or obstruction with the course of the judicial proceeding and he contends that the learned Advocates as also their clients are liable for action under the Contempt of Courts Act.

(3.) The petitioner is an elderly person. He has presented this petition along with several annexures. He has also filed his rejoinders to the replies filed by the respondents and we have heard him at considerable length because we have desired that no aspect of the matter should be overlooked by this Court. The respondents' have contended that there is not even an iota of material to justify the charges of contempt and that too criminal contempt against any of the respondents. They have produced the relevant records one of which indicates that the petitioner had originally taken out contempt proceedings alleging civil contempt which proceedings were unsuccessful and they have submitted that in this background where the High Court has once examined the aspect of alleged contempt, that there was absolutely no justification for the filing of the present petition. In our considered view, there is much substance in what has been pointed out by the respondents. Contempt proceedings are serious matters and unless there is clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence of contempt as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, it is not open to indiscriminately level such charges on the basis of mere grievance or hurt feelings. The present proceeding despite, very careful scrutiny by us does not make out a case for action under the Contempt of Courts Act. Criminal contempt is the more serious of the two forms of contempt of Court and the Act itself has very clearly laid down the few categories of cases that would come with the ambit of this definition. The allegations that have been made against the learned Advocates in the background of the law and the facts of this case were unfortunate and in our considered view they are also unjustified.